[mike777]

Yet again it seems that an athlete is punished for taking chemicals that work that in his case worked.

Braun won MVP and his team made the playoffs and the fans and owners were very very happy.

Now they punish him. In America we have a history of ignoring stupid laws and this law is stupid BS.

At some point America will wake up and accept chemicals that make you better, legal. UNtil then we have cigs and booze and many other legal chemicals that harm you ..silly.

Only in sports do we allow many many chemicals that harm you legal and ones that make you better illegal.
--

What next ban memory drugs that improve memory in bridge?

[Gerben42]

If you approve of doping, you might want to consider that if you allow everything, horrible things come out. In the former GDR, women were doped to the point that their body gave up thinking it was a woman. Some of them now have to live as men. Others died at an early age. In cycling, some athletes had their red blood cell count increased to the point where their blood fluid was at a dangerously low level, leading to heart attack.

Drugs are bad, don't use drugs, mmmkay?

[mike777]

Gerben42, on 2011-December-11, 03:27, said:

If you approve of doping, you might want to consider that if you allow everything, horrible things come out. In the former GDR, women were doped to the point that their body gave up thinking it was a woman. Some of them now have to live as men. Others died at an early age. In cycling, some athletes had their red blood cell count increased to the point where their blood fluid was at a dangerously low level, leading to heart attack.

Drugs are bad, don't use drugs, mmmkay?

drugs/chemicals are great...not sure why people think drugs/chemicals are bad. IN general we all die without them.

As I said in the OP....no problem banning drugs that dont work well. Of course in general we dont ban drugs such as cigs or booze that dont work well but we ban drugs such as steriods which can work well.

For example my doc just told me to take a steriod( with a very very long name) for 6 days. So I test positive for a steriod.

On top of that the drug stops my cough which makes it a PED. I do better at work.

Again I have no issue with banning drugs that dont improve performance or kill you in the very short run( that hurts my team)

btw I note here in America we seem to have no problem with the game of football which hurts almost every player after one or two years. So it seems dying at a younger age or with many health related issues the fans/players/owners just dont seem to care that much.

[Mbodell]

mike777, on 2011-December-11, 03:42, said:

btw I note here in America we seem to have no problem with the game of football which hurts almost every player after one or two years. So it seems dying at a younger age or with many health related issues the fans/players/owners just dont seem to care that much.

To say nothing of boxing or mixed martial arts.

I'm torn. The main thing I'd like to see are the rules being fair, fairly enforced, and not a case of the richest folks know how to beat the system with occasional huge penalties for the one guy who occasionally gets caught. But I'm also sympathetic to the argument that says employees shouldn't have to consent to drug testing. I know that even though I don't use illicit drugs I'd object pretty strongly if my employer wished to test me for drug use.

[luke warm]

i agree with mike... better living thru chemistry is my motto, except for those that known health risks

[kenberg]

I boxed (poorly) with friends when I was young. As an adult, I don't watch boxing on the grounds that I don't think it is right to pay people to beat other people up. I don't much watch football either.

Back to drugs:

There is a difference between letting people do things that seem to me to be monumentally stupid and setting up a sport where we make it lucrative for people to do things that are monumentally stupid. We have a right to ban drugs in a sport just as we have a right to require football players to wear helmets.


Btw, my wife got an e-mail with the following observation (I will approximate the dates, I am unsure of the exact time or the truth of the statement):

The first protective cup was used in professional hockey in 1876, the first protective helmet was used in football in 1976. From this we conclude that it only took men a hundred years to conclude that their brains are also important.

[mwalimu02]

substance had to have been banned for a reason. Why use it!

[hrothgar]

Mike, the argument against banning performance enhancing drugs is fairly simple

1. Prisoner's dilemma exists
2. Performance enhancing drugs qualify as an example of a prisoner's dilemma
3. Collective action - in this case banning performance enhancing drugs - is Parto efficient

Please explain which of these issues you don't understand or don't agree with.

[Cyberyeti]

mike777, on 2011-December-11, 03:42, said:

drugs/chemicals are great...not sure why people think drugs/chemicals are bad. IN general we all die without them.

As I said in the OP....no problem banning drugs that dont work well. Of course in general we dont ban drugs such as cigs or booze that dont work well but we ban drugs such as steriods which can work well.

For example my doc just told me to take a steriod( with a very very long name) for 6 days. So I test positive for a steriod.

On top of that the drug stops my cough which makes it a PED. I do better at work.

Again I have no issue with banning drugs that dont improve performance or kill you in the very short run( that hurts my team)

btw I note here in America we seem to have no problem with the game of football which hurts almost every player after one or two years. So it seems dying at a younger age or with many health related issues the fans/players/owners just dont seem to care that much.

Tell this to Lyle Alzado and many of the other NFL stars that died before they got to any great age due to the routine steroid and other drug abuse in the game.

Steroids work well in the quantities you're meant to take them for treating acne or whatever. When taken in excessive quantities, you get the effects noted with the (not only east) German athletes for example http://en.wikipedia....Birgit_Dressel. Since you can't reliably tell how much somebody's taken by testing, you ban the drug entirely.

[mike777]

Guys for starters clearly many many PED's are not banned. There are hundreds of chemical compounds that improve performance and not banned. Pain killers in football are one class. Vitamins are another.

I just find the arguments against PED seem to be arguments for better, more effective drugs not for banning them all.

IN any event my guess is the discussion will become moot overtime as these PEDs are used in the general population they will be used in sports/games including bridge.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2011-December-11, 13:16, said:

Guys for starters clearly many many PED's are not banned. There are hundreds of chemical compounds that improve performance and not banned. Pain killers in football are one class. Vitamins are another.

I just find the arguments against PED seem to be arguments for better, more effective drugs not for banning them all.

IN any event my guess is the discussion will become moot overtime as these PEDs are used in the general population they will be used in sports/games including bridge.

Mike, the argument against banning performance enhancing drugs is fairly simple

1. Prisoner's dilemma exists
2. Performance enhancing drugs qualify as an example of a prisoner's dilemma
3. Collective action - in this case banning performance enhancing drugs - is Parto efficient

Please explain which of these issues you don't understand or don't agree with.

[Mbodell]

hrothgar, on 2011-December-11, 14:33, said:

2. Performance enhancing drugs qualify as an example of a prisoner's dilemma

I think it is this one. Not all the PED which are banned are actually harmful. Some may even be healthful.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2011-December-11, 10:34, said:

We have a right to ban drugs in a sport just as we have a right to require football players to wear helmets.

While I would agree that PEDs should not be used in a sport and that football players (and motorcycle riders!) ought to wear helmets, I have to ask: who is "we", and whence comes this alleged right?

[kenberg]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-11, 16:18, said:

While I would agree that PEDs should not be used in a sport and that football players (and motorcycle riders!) ought to wear helmets, I have to ask: who is "we", and whence comes this alleged right?

That's easy, I'm a we, you aren't.

Sure, this is always a problem. But right now this country accepts that we get to do this, so we get to do it. It is, too some extent, a case of the we folks ganging up on the rest. That will always happen unless people are somehow re-designed.

It has crossed my mind more than once that maybe we are overdoing it with the protection bit. But somehow the thought of us all hopping people up on drugs so we can sit in front of the tv and watch them bash each other is so repulsive I am willing to put aside some scruples about interfering in others lives.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-11, 16:18, said:

While I would agree that PEDs should not be used in a sport and that football players (and motorcycle riders!) ought to wear helmets, I have to ask: who is "we", and whence comes this alleged right?

Social contract theory dates at least 450 years...

Philosopher's since (at least) Hobbes have described that individuals delegate their rights to a collective in order to improve their lot.
This is government 101 stuff.

Kinda surprised it never got covered at Cornell.
It has adecent rep.

[phil_20686]

People who advocate for PED's seem to lack a basic understanding of human nature imo.

People who play at a high level are uber competitive. In some sports it is already common to train at such a level of intensity as to cause significant long term damage to your body. Imagining that legalising PED's will lead to sensible outcomes is a pipe dream. In reality sports people will compete to take ever higher dosages to the point of shortening their own lives for our entertainment. There is no drug that is not harmful for the body taken in sufficient quantities, and in reality they will take these quantities in order to gain a perceived edge. I would not like to be part of a society that incentivises people to shorten their own lives. It seems not much different from a blood sport then.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2011-December-11, 17:19, said:

That's easy, I'm a we, you aren't.

Sure, this is always a problem. But right now this country accepts that we get to do this, so we get to do it. It is, too some extent, a case of the we folks ganging up on the rest. That will always happen unless people are somehow re-designed.

It has crossed my mind more than once that maybe we are overdoing it with the protection bit. But somehow the thought of us all hopping people up on drugs so we can sit in front of the tv and watch them bash each other is so repulsive I am willing to put aside some scruples about interfering in others lives.

"We" may have the power to do a lot of things. That's not at all the same thing as the right to do them. So I'm an idealist. Sue me.

[jjbrr]

I personally thought this is a great article. In general I think Bill Simmons is excellent, though, so I understand if I look retarded posting it.

Grantland PED Article

[mike777]

jjbrr, on 2013-February-06, 22:48, said:

I personally thought this is a great article. In general I think Bill Simmons is excellent, though, so I understand if I look retarded posting it.

Grantland PED Article

I really only know Bill through his NBA book which I loved.


Not really sure what his point is in this article, it felt all over the place.
In any event my view on PED are make them cheap, safe and effective and we all take them; we all give them to our loved ones.

See memory drugs for bridge players that are safe, cheap and effective.
I fully, fully expect it will take a trial and error process to get us to this point but that is the goal.

A trial and error process in which some will choose to jump to the head of the line.

[jjbrr]

I won't comment on PEDs because I have nothing original to say, but I also read Simmons' NBA book and thought it was great so I have a lot of respect for him as a writer and sports thinker. I thought his message was pretty clear in this article, and he has a voice that I think very few sports writers are willing to take, but I understand the controversy of his speculations as well.

Dunno. Just found it interesting.